Via Latin: im -- mort -- a(lis)kirk5a wrote:The etymology looks to be linked to the english "immortal"
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philol ... :2001.pali" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Metta,
Retro.
Via Latin: im -- mort -- a(lis)kirk5a wrote:The etymology looks to be linked to the english "immortal"
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philol ... :2001.pali" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Well, a hundered and one hole indeed. Fiirst of all, as has been pointed out to you elsewhere the suttas I quoted above use amata, a word that is not derived from a [not] + mara [death] + ata [ness]. Seeretrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt, Kirk, all,
I know Tilt likes the "freedom from death" translation, but it's hard to see the etmology of this translation. It's certainly not a literal one, as there doesn't seem to be anything there resembling "freedom" let alone "freedom from" in the Pali word amata.
Similarly, to pick up Tilt's point, there's no "the" in amata either, so similarly, "the deathless" is not a literal translation of the term in question either.
Both "freedom from death" and "the deathless" are interpretations of what amata might mean rather than a literal and agreed definition per se. Being interpretations they're both far more subjective than an agreed definition, and different people will have their preferred interpretation for different reasons... hence the reasons different people are presenting different suttas, and finding that neither interpretation universally applies or fits with all.
Now I'm not a Pali expert at all, but a reasonable etymology for amata seems to be...
a [not] + mara [death] + ata [ness]
It's not an interpretation - it's a deconstruction of the term into (what might be) its constituent components.
And despite all the brouhaha about how amata should be interpreted, and the fact I'm sure a hundred and one holes could be poked through my Pali tinkering, the definition "not-deathness" I propose here seems to be an amenable fit with all the suttas that have been provided by participants in the discussion.
Any thoughts on "not-deathness"? Perhaps try substituting it into the sutta extracts provided above and see how it fits.
Metta,
Retro.
But like so many words that the Buddha adopted -- and then adapted -- from his Brahmanical milieu, the meaning, in context, is vastly different.kirk5a wrote:The etymology looks to be linked to the english "immortal"
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philol ... :2001.pali" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It doesn't work for me.retrofuturist wrote:Any thoughts on "not-deathness"?
No, not thoughts, lol ! Amata refers to freedom from the conditioned existence of greed, hatred and delusion, birth and death. = Nibbana, deathlessness.Spiny O'Norman wrote:
Thoughts?
Spiny
Nippapanca is cool.Aloka wrote:No, not thoughts, lol !
Deathlessness is better than "the Deathless," which tends to suggest that there is some thing out there that does not die, but it is still not quite there.Aloka wrote:No, not thoughts, lol ! Amata refers to freedom from the conditioned existence of greed, hatred and delusion, birth and death = Nibbana, deathlessness.Spiny O'Norman wrote:
Thoughts?
Spiny
Why not translate in a way that reflects exactly what it is referring to:Spiny O'Norman wrote:It doesn't work for me.retrofuturist wrote:Any thoughts on "not-deathness"?
So are we any closer to establishing what amata is referring to?
The options seem to be:
1. Nibbana
2. Pari-nibbana
3. Both Nibbana and Pari-nibbana.
Thoughts?
Spiny
Death (and even aging-and-death) is equated with dukkha throughout the suttas. This makes amata freedom from dukkha.Spiny O'Norman wrote: So are we any closer to establishing what amata is referring to?
Ok that's great and all. But what does this "freedom from dukkha, which is the end of greed, hatred and delusion" actually amount to, as an experienced reality?nowheat wrote:Death (and even aging-and-death) is equated with dukkha throughout the suttas. This makes amata freedom from dukkha.Spiny O'Norman wrote: So are we any closer to establishing what amata is referring to?
Being free of dukkha would likely mean no longer being tormented by dukkha.kirk5a wrote:Ok that's great and all. But what does this "freedom from dukkha, which is the end of greed, hatred and delusion" actually amount to, as an experienced reality?nowheat wrote:Death (and even aging-and-death) is equated with dukkha throughout the suttas. This makes amata freedom from dukkha.Spiny O'Norman wrote: So are we any closer to establishing what amata is referring to?
Moreover, that's what you believe it's referring to. (Which is fine, everyone is entitled to their perspective, but to state unequivocally that your interpretation is "exactly what it is referring to" is over-reaching... certainly from the POV of all the participants who are not fully satisfied with your interpretation. It is, as you said above, your interpretative translation.)tiltbillings wrote:Why not translate in a way that reflects exactly what it is referring to: freedom from death
I have made both a textual and grammatical argument for what my position.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt, all,
Moreover, that's what you believe it's referring to.tiltbillings wrote:Why not translate in a way that reflects exactly what it is referring to: freedom from death
Over-reaching? Not that you have shown.but to state unequivocally that your interpretation is "exactly what it is referring to" is over-reaching
No one has to agree with my position, but I am still waiting for a counter argument that is at the level of the argument I have presented. It has not happened as of yet.certainly from the POV of all the participants who are not fully satisfied with your interpretation. It is, as you said above, your interpretative translation.
So you assert, but you have yet to show that it strengthens your position. You have not even come close to addressing the grammatical issues of the Pali.Consider... does aniccata mean "freedom from permanence"? Does anattata mean "freedom from self"? (I know you think the Pali Dictionary link refutes this etymology, but seeing the Latin parallel im -- mort -- a(lis), I think it actually strengthens it)
Okay, but where is your actual argument? MN I 173 neatly makes my point, but on the other hand you seem to want to reduce every suggestion of rebirth into some sort of symbolic non-time differentiated thingie. That is your interpretation. Mine, however, is certainly consistent with the Buddha's teachings and is far more informative than what you are offering.Anyway, if I were to have my turn to venture forth my personal perspective on "what it is referring to", I would say it pertains to the quality of non-dissolution in that which is not-formed. i.e. the not-deathness, or deathlessness of asankhata dhammas.
Sure, and its to your benefit that you can do that... but of course, your willingness to accept your own argument and authority doesn't oblige others to do likewise.tiltbillings wrote:I have made both a textual and grammatical argument for what my position.
So "level of argument" determines what is beneficial and useful in the Dhamma? In a Debate Club, perhaps...tiltbillings wrote:No one has to agree with my position, but I am still waiting for a counter argument that is at the level of the argument I have presented. It has not happened as of yet.
It's not an argument - it's an intuitive sense that it accords with the overall teaching of the suttas, accords with the Buddha's inclination to re-shape the lexicon of the time to fit the Dhamma, accords with the many other synonyms of nibbana which point to a certain quality of experience rather than a bifurcation of a "being" from its "death", it makes sense when paired with the Pali word dhatu (element / quality) etc.tiltbillings wrote:Okay, but where is your actual argument?
A strawman with no bearing whatsoever on why I define amata as not-deathness, and understand it as "the quality of non-dissolution in that which is not-formed". But since you raise it, what or whom experiences this "freedom from death"? Is it a satta, is it vinnana etc.? What "death" is this satta/vinnana/whatever-you-like-it-to-be experiencing freedom from? Its own? An other?tiltbillings wrote:you seem to want to reduce every suggestion of rebirth into some sort of symbolic non-time differentiated thingie.
The teachings as you understand them being the obvious caveat here. To quote from your signature, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What they are not entitled to is their own facts." (D.P. Moynihan)tiltbillings wrote:Mine, however, is certainly consistent with the Buddha's teachings and is far more informative than what you are offering.